Dollar daze

Democrats may be celebrating the results but money was the clear winner in the 2006 midterm elections, which experts say will rank as the most expensive midterm contest ever. The experts at the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics figure that candidates will have spent an estimated $2.8 billion when all the post-election reports are in.

To paraphrase what a famous politician once said, a million here, a million there and pretty soon you’re talking real money.

Money had a companion in this election, as in every other. Despite the impressions of sweeping change and a lot of incumbents going down to defeat, the power of incumbency is alive and well.

In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 67 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 9, the candidate who spent the most money won, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The findings are based on candidates’ spending through Oct. 18, as reported to the Federal Election Commission.

The biggest spender was victorious in 398 of 428 decided House races and 22 of 33 decided Senate races. On Election Day 2004, top spenders won 98 percent of House races and 88 percent of Senate races.

Overall, 94 percent of House incumbents and 79 percent of senators have won re-election, which is a little below incumbents’ re-election rates over the past few cycles, the Center reports.

Despite the power of money, seven Republican congressional candidates and 33 Democrats who were outspent by their opponents managed to win their seats. Carol Shea-Porter, a New Hampshire Democrat, spent the least among outsiders to win a House seat — $123,257 at last report.

Politicians know how to spend money even when there may be little need.

Despite the record expense to elect Congress, nearly one quarter of House races — 111 in all — involved a candidate with zero financial opposition, according to the Center. In 36 House races, the winning candidate ran completely unopposed. Another 75 winning candidates faced challengers who either spent no money or filed no reports with the FEC.

The Center says that the most expensive race in the country, as measured by the candidates’ spending before Election Day, was the $45.7 million Senate race in New York — and it was not much of a contest.

While the overwhelming majority of races featured incumbents running for re-election, money was also decisive when newcomers squared off. The top spender in House open-seat contests won 88 percent of the time. In the Senate newcomers with fewer resources fared a little better, however, just 25 percent of the biggest spenders came out on top.

Pundits, polls and pols like to view the results as red or blue. But really, it was just another green election.